The Court of Appeal has put brakes on plans to swear-in Nairobi Deputy Governor Anne Kananu as the county chief,
The court halted the plan on Tuesday, following an appeal lodged by former Governor Mike Sonko and rights activist Okiya Omtatah.
They challenged the decision of the High Court to dismiss petitions against Ms Kananu’s nomination, vetting and appointment.
A three-judge bench of Justices Judges Wanjiru Karanja, Jessie Lessit and Jamila Mohammed certified the case as urgent and halted the swearing-in pending further directions on October 22.
Sonko’s case
Through lawyer Wilfred Nyamu, the former governor and the activist told the court that if Ms Kananu’s swearing-in is not stopped, the appeal will be rendered nugatory, be overtaken by events and only serve an academic purpose.
In the appeal, Mr Nyamu said the High Court erred in dismissing the petitions as it failed to consider wholly various laws related to the removal of a governor from office and fair administrative action.
He says the court failed to evaluate the evidence properly, thereby dismissing the petitions without addressing issues germane in the Sonko impeachment.
“The judges looked into irrelevant matters, made contradictory findings and showed open bias against Sonko, dismissing the petition on the wrong principles,” states Mr Nyamu.
He also argues that the court was openly biased against Sonko when the judges failed to objectively assess his evidence and objections to the impeachment by both the Senate and county assembly.
“The judges were openly biased against the appellant when they proceeded to castigate and impugn him and condemning him as guilty of the unsubstantiated charges leveled against him,” says the lawyer.
Another bias, he says, occurred when the judges failed to place any weight on evidence by his client’s witnesses regarding public participation on the impeachment, the threshold of members of the county assembly required to vote in favour of the motion and and lack of evidence to support the claims leveled against him.
High Court ruling
In dismissing the petitions and upholding Sonko’s ouster, the three-judge High Court bench of Justices Juma Chitembwe, Wilfrida Okwany and Weldon Korir, said due process was followed and that there was sufficient public participation on both the impeachment motion and Ms Kananu’s vetting.
The judges unanimously ruled that the allegations leveled against Sonko, such as abuse of office and gross misconduct, were substantiated to the required standard and were connected to him.
Hence, the court said, the Senate and county assembly cannot be faulted for their decision to impeach him and dismissed claims that senators were biased. Also dismissed were claims that the Senate decision was predetermined.
“[There is] no evidence the senators met and decided on how to vote on the charges in the motion. Even if he was found culpable of one charge, he would still have been impeached,” ruled the court.
The judges further observed that it would be proper for the Senate to be dealing with impeachment motions through special committees as opposed to the plenary.
The court said debating a governor’s impeachment in the plenary is like subjecting them to public lynching.
Another observation was that impeachment should be the last remedy where the wrongs committed by the office holder cannot await correction in the next electoral cycle.
Sonko faced multiple charges including use of abusive language on social media. The court held that the office of the governor needs respect and high standards.
The judges also dismissed claims that the impeachment motion was influenced by President Uhuru Kenyatta and other external forces.
“There is no merit on allegations that the impeachment was engineered by reasons other than those in Article 181 of the Constitution. The impeachment motion complied with the Constitution and the statutory law,” said the judges. BY DAILY NATION